Curriculum integration = course disintegration: What does this mean for anatomy?

Anatomical Sciences Education

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 205-208

  Bolender, David L ^a   Ettarh, Rajunor ^b   Jerrett, David P ^b   Laherty, Richard F ^c  

^a MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

^b TULANE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Southwest College Naturopathic Med   (United States)

Author keywords

Basic sciences; Curriculum decisions; Curriculum design; Gross anatomy education; Integration; Interdisciplinary curriculum; Medical education

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY; ARTICLE; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION;

ANATOMY; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION, MEDICAL; HUMANS;

EID: 84876441301     PISSN: 19359772     EISSN: 19359780     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ase.1320     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Brynhildsen J, Dahle LO, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I, Hammar M. 2002. Attitudes among students and teachers on vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum. Med Teach 24: 286-288.
2. Chambers DA, Cohen RL, Girotti J. 2011. A century of premedical education. Perspect Biol Med 54: 17-23.
3. Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I, Hammar M. 2002. Pros and cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum: Examples and experiences from Linköping, Sweden. Med Teach 24: 280-285.
4. Dienstag JL. 2008. Relevance and rigor in premedical education. N Engl J Med 359: 221-224.
5. Dienstag JL. 2011. Evolution of the new pathway curriculum at Harvard Medical School: The new integrated curriculum. Perspect Biol Med 54:36-54.
6. Dubois EA, Franson KL. 2009. Key steps for integrating a basic science throughout a medical school curriculum using an e-learning approach. Med Teach 31: 822-828.
7. Flexner A. 1910. Medical Education in the United States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement for Teaching. Carnegie Bulletin 4. New York, NY: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 346 p. URL: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/sites/default/files/elibrary/Carnegie_Flexner_Report.pdf [accessed 14 August 2012].
8. Goldman E, Schroth WS. 2012. Perspective: Deconstructing integration: A framework for the rational application of integration as a guiding curricular strategy. Acad Med 87: 729-734.
9. Harden RM. 2000. The integration ladder: A tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Med Educ 34: 551-557.
10. Klement BJ, Paulsen DF, Wineski LE. 2011. Anatomy as the backbone of an integrated first year medical curriculum: Design and implementation. Anat Sci Educ 4: 157-169.
11. Ludmerer KM. 1999. Undergraduate medical education. In: Ludmerer KM (Editor). Time to Heal: American Medical Education from the Turn of the Century to the Era of Managed Care.1st Ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p 59-78.
12. Muller JH, Jain S, Loeser H, Irby DM. 2008. Lessons learned about integrating a medical school curriculum: Perceptions of students, faculty and curriculum leaders. Med Educ 42: 778-785.
13. Van der Veken J, Valcke M, De Maeseneer J, Schuwirth L, Derese A. 2009. Impact on knowledge acquisition of the transition from a conventional to an integrated contextual medical curriculum. Med Educ 43: 704-713.
14. Vidic B, Weitlauf HM. 2002. Horizontal and vertical integration of academic disciplines in the medical school curriculum. Clin Anat 15: 233-235.
15. Wormald BW, Schoeman S, Somasunderam A, Penn M. 2009. Assessment drives learning: An unavoidable truth? Anat Sci Educ 2: 199-204.